Research

Working Papers

Consumer Bankruptcy Audits,

Bankruptcy insures consumers against large and unexpected wealth shocks. However, debtors may abuse this insurance. Indeed, close to 20% of consumer bankruptcy filings contain at least one material misstatement. I exploit the conditionally random assignment of audits to estimate the effect of mandatory accounting oversight on debt forgiveness in consumer bankruptcy. I find that audits reduce debt forgiveness, but only when alternative oversight is low (Chapter 7). Audits come at the cost of increased case complexity for filers, deteriorating the long-run financial health of unsophisticated filers. Generally, audits drive a reallocation of debt relief from non-compliers and misreporters to truthful filers. Aggregate calculations show that the reduction in debt forgiveness due to misstatements and deterrence exceeds the direct cost of increasing the audit rate when oversight is low. Reductions in debt relief due to deterrence exceed reductions due to identified misstatements two-fold.

Current Expected Credit Losses and Consumer Loans, with Joao Granja,

R&R at Journal of Accounting & Economics

We use data from TransUnion, a large U.S. credit bureau covering millions of individual consumer loans, to examine the transition to the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) accounting standard and to provide novel evidence about the impact that raising reserve requirements has on banks' pricing and lending decisions in the U.S. consumer lending market. We find that greater reserve requirements following the adoption of CECL induce a statistically significant but economically moderate increase in loan interest rates. The effects are more pronounced for weakly-capitalized banks and even more so for underprivileged individuals borrowing from weakly-capitalized banks. Our evidence informs the ongoing policy debate between standard setters and members of the financial industry about the potential effects of CECL on credit markets.


We show how to measure the welfare effects arising from increased data availability. When lenders have more data on prospective borrower costs, they can charge prices that are more aligned with these costs. This increases total social welfare and transfers surplus from borrowers to lenders. We show that the magnitudes of the welfare changes can be estimated using only quantity data and variation in prices. We apply the methodology on bankruptcy flag removals and find that removing prior bankruptcy information substantially increases the social surplus of previously bankrupt consumers, at the cost of a modest decrease in total allocative welfare. We show how the framework can be extended to incorporate adverse selection and imperfect competition.